Persuasive Decisions Arising From The Courts Of Other Jurisdictions

970 WordsSep 8, 20154 Pages
We further find persuasive decisions arising from the courts of other jurisdictions that have, by an overwhelming majority, refused to endorse the usurpation of the jurisdiction of a court with concurrent jurisdiction via the failure to permit the matter to be resolved in its original forum. See, e.g., First Midwest Corp. v. Corp. Fin. Assoc., 663 N. W. 2d 888, 892-93 (Iowa 2003) (holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny stay while matter was pending in neighboring state) (citing Waicker, supra, 347 Md. at 115); Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 549 N.W.2d 172, 176 (Neb. 1996) (holding that “entertaining [a] declaratory judgment action was an abuse of discretion” where same issue were pending in West Virginia); Simmons v. Superior Court in and for L.A. Cnty., 214 P.2d 844, 848-49 (1950) (“The fruits of the recognition of the rule of comity have been so beneficient, when applied to courts of concurrent jurisdiction created by differed sovereignties, as to justify the conclusion that it is not only a rule of comity, but one of necessity.” (internal quotations omitted)); Phelps v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass’n, 112 F. 453, 465-66 (6th Cir. 1901) (“It is a rule of almost universal application that, between courts of the same sovereignty and concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the controversy . . . should be suffered by every other court to decide every question within the sphere of the pending cause . . . .”). These persuasive
Open Document